Kriti Sharma vs Haryana Urban Devevelopment Authority & Ors

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 27.10.2010 of the State Commission in appeal no. 602 of 2006 arising out of the Order dated 10.01.2006 of the District Commission in complaint no. 397 of 2005.

We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant (the petitioner herein) and for the development authority (the respondents herein). We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 10.01.2006 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 27.10.2010 of the State Commission and the petition.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had been allotted a plot on 18.02.1998 by the development authority at a tentative cost of Rs. 5,11,170/-. He deposited part of the consideration i.e. 4,78,487/-. The development authority raised a demand for additional cost on account of enhancement in compensation to the land owners by the civil court on 28.08.2002, in consonance with a condition of allotment. The same was to be deposited within 30 days. On the complainant’s failure to do so, the development authority sent notices dated 14.06.1999, dated 08.06.2000 and dated 26.07.2001 to him. The complainant thereafter submitted a letter dated 16.12.2002 wherein he stated that due to unavoidable circumstances he was not in a position to pay the enhanced cost and he wanted to surrender the plot, and he requested for refund of the amount deposited. The development authority accepted the request for surrender and after deducting 10% of the total sale consideration as per its norms i.e. Rs. 71,303/- refunded an amount of Rs. 4,07,184/- vide cheque dated 20.03.2003. The complainant subsequently filed a complaint on 30.05.2005 before the District Commission seeking restoration of the subject plot or allotment of an alternative plot along with interest on the deposited as well as the deducted amounts.

The District Commission allowed the complaint. However, appeal filed by the development authority was accepted by the State Commission and it dismissed the complaint. The State Commission principally relied on the complainant’s request made vide his letter dated 16.12.2002, abstracts of which are reproduced below for reference:

“Satya Devi Jakhar

Vijaya Bank

N. H. 5, Neelam – Lok Hospital Road,

N.I.T. Faridabad.

To

Estate Officer, HUDA,

HUDA, Faridabad.

Sub:  Surrender of plot no. 2306 Sector-2, Palwal.

Sir,

I have been allotted plot No. 2306 at Sector-2, Palwal as per your allotment letter Memo No. 150 dated 18.2.98. I have remitted the total amt. Rs.484654.80 as follows:-

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Now due to unavoidable circumstances, I am not able to pay enhancement price. So I want to surrender the said plot. Kindly accept and pay the Amt. to me.

Thanks

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Satyadev Jakhar)

After appraising the evidence, the State Commission determined that the complainant willingly surrendered the plot due to his own financial constraints. It observed that the District Commission had failed to appreciate the factual position as borne out by the record in its true perspective and as such its Order was not sustainable.

Vide this Commission’s Order dated 06.09.2011 notice on this petition was issued on the short question of the quantum of deduction and as to why the deduction made may not be treated as excessive and against the norms.

We may first note that this was not a case in which allegations of failure on the part of the development authority to develop the area / plot within the assured period or within a reasonable period or allegations of financial malfeasance or allegations of some deficient or unfair & deceptive act etc. were leveled by the complainant against the development authority or that the same was ever the reason for surrendering the plot and asking for refund of the deposited amount. On the other hand, this was a plain and simple case of the complainant voluntarily surrendering the plot on his own freewill and asking for refund of the amount deposited by him. No element of duress as may have been exercised or as may be attributable to the development authority is visible. The State Commission has determined that he surrendered the plot due to his financial constraints, which was his own outlook and had no concern with the development authority’s duty.

We see no good reason to take a different view than which has been taken by the State Commission, and agree that the District Commission erred in appreciating the facts and the evidence in the correct perspective.

We may add that the deduction of 10% of the total sale consideration has been made in accordance with the rules / norms of the development authority. The development authority is a government organization and is required and expected to work in accordance with its laid-down administrative, financial and technical rules. Its accounts are subject to audit. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant had been discriminated against by the development authority or differently treated from other similarly situate persons. There is nothing to show that the normative 10% deduction was not being uniformly adopted by the development authority in respect of all similarly placed persons. Pertinently, in his complaint before the District Commission the complainant had not agitated the quantum of the normative deduction, but had essentially asked for re-allotment of the same plot or of a similar plot. After a holistic look at the case, we do not feel the need to further examine the fairness or otherwise of the normative deduction of 10% since this is not necessary and would be misplaced in the facts and context of the present case.

We notice no jurisdictional error or material irregularity or miscarriage of justice having been occasioned in the State Commission’s impugned Order.

The revision being bereft of worth stands dismissed.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.